I have never seen Khwaja in action for a significant period of time, so will not comment on his suitability.

However, the argument that he is a defensive batsman falls flat on it's face when you look at Dravid at number 3. Ponting was an excellent number 3 for Australia during their years of domination. However, a complete number 3 should also have the ability to shut shop and get settled in tough conditions and situations. Dravid, in that respect is the complete number 3 - Headingly '02 is the ultimate number 3 innings - and not Ponting, whose only instinct is to attack. Sometimes situations in life and cricket demand licking your chops and admitting that the opposition has got the upper hand, knuckling down and weather the storm rather than go on the offensive.

Ponting has done it on a few occasions with reasonable success, but is not a natural number 3. His falling away at the position in a depleted team is a testament to his limitations as a number 3.

Tbf India has not dominated in many matches in the 90s, especially away. Therefore they heavily relied on Dravid for saving matches in that position. Kinda is evident of insignificant importance he has become to the teams cause with the rise of Sehwag-Gambhir opening partnership.

But in the modern game, anybody can tell you that a counter attacking batsman is best suited at #3. Don't buy your Dravid suited at #3 more than Punter argument at all, completely bull**** tbh.

Tbf India has not dominated in many matches in the 90s, especially away. Therefore they heavily relied on Dravid for saving matches in that position. Kinda is evident how insignificant of importance he has become to the teams cause with the rise of Sehwag-Gambhir opening partnership.

But in the modern game, anybody can tell you that a counter attacking batsman is best suited at #3.

Completely agree with your first paragraph. And that's a similar situation Australia find themselves in today. They don't have a world class opening pair, and they don't have a middle order which will make anyone fearful. In this situation, the number 3 should be more adaptable and be able to play the game according to the situation and not just his natural instincts.

Regrading your second assertion, I have little doubt that most people would prefer a counter attacking number 3. My point is that the batsman should have sufficient versatility to play the role of a defender as well. Ponting has it, but rarely if ever brings forth that aspect of his game. Dravid has it and brings it forth perhaps once too often. I would rather err on the side of Dravid than Ponting if my team is weak in a lot of other aspects. The Ponting role only fits teams with a strong opening and a middle order to cover up the damages. Australia has neither at the moment.

Australia aren't as weak as you are suggesting. Actually the batting is not as strong as it was before which coincides with Ponting losing form (can't call it losing form tbh, just getting out), if he was getting the runs we wouldn't be discussing this today.

Even at the stage we are in, I would still take Ponting over Dravid any day of the weak. Maybe if our batting was in the dumps and we were scoring 200 every innings then I might reconsider.

Even that though still doesn't prove why Dravid's runs will become more important than Ponting's when for example the rest of the batting order were averaging in the 20s. Because then you would be assuming Dravid would average higher than Ponting, which isn't the case.

The openers are strong, in fact probably as consistent and prolific as any opening partnership going around international cricket right now (with Katman there that is). It's just the erratic and inconsistent middle order that is our problem.

Australia aren't as weak as you are suggesting. Actually the batting is not as strong as it was before which coincides with Ponting losing form (can't call it losing form tbh, just getting out), if he was getting the runs we wouldn't be discussing this today.

Even at the stage we are in, I would still take Ponting over Dravid any day of the weak. Maybe if our batting was in the dumps and we were scoring 200 every innings then I might reconsider.

Even that though still doesn't prove why Dravid's runs will become more important than Ponting's when for example the rest of the batting order were averaging in the 20s. Because then you would be assuming Dravid would average higher than Ponting, which isn't the case.

Australia is ranked number 4 in the world - they've lost every series against top opposition for the last 3 years except one against South Africa. Not sure how much weaker you want the team to be.

If he was getting runs? The fact is, he is not. And the only time he got those runs was when he was in a dream batting plus bowling line up. Except for '02-'06, Ponting's average is around 40 - this in a day and age of the best batting conditions of the last 40 years.

Don't know if you realize, but Australia's batting is scoring 200 odd runs in any crucial test innings. Yeah, the overall numbers are not bad, but the last 3 years have seen so many collapses from the Aussie line up to rival with only Pakistan.

The difference between Dravid and Ponting's average is not much. Will you change your opinion if Dravid starts averaging more than Ponting? It might happen just within the next year.

Australia is ranked number 4 in the world - they've lost every series against top opposition for the last 3 years except one against South Africa. Not sure how much weaker you want the team to be.

If he was getting runs? The fact is, he is not. And the only time he got those runs was when he was in a dream batting plus bowling line up. Except for '02-'06, Ponting's average is around 40 - this in a day and age of the best batting conditions of the last 40 years.

Don't know if you realize, but Australia's batting is scoring 200 odd runs in any crucial test innings. Yeah, the overall numbers are not bad, but the last 3 years have seen so many collapses from the Aussie line up to rival with only Pakistan.

The difference between Dravid and Ponting's average is not much. Will you change your opinion if Dravid starts averaging more than Ponting? It might happen just within the next year.

For your 3 first paragraphs, you are way over exaggerating it. Talent wise our batting lineup is just as strong as India's or SA's (except maybe #6 position).

For your last paragraph my answer is definitely, if Dravid was averaging significantly higher than Ponting, he obviously would have been a significantly better player. The reality is he doesn't average higher and he is not a better player than Ponting.

For your 3 first paragraphs, you are way over exaggerating it. Talent wise our batting lineup is just as strong as India's or SA's (except maybe #6 position).

For your last paragraph my answer is definitely, if Dravid was averaging significantly higher than Ponting, he obviously would have been a significantly better player. The reality is he doesn't average higher and he is not a better player than Ponting.

I would disagree that the Australian batting line up is comparable to Indian or South Africa. Both these teams have instances where they have managed very good scores in difficult batting conditions. I can't think of a single instance from Australia over the past 2-3 years.

How much is significant? Dravid and Ponting have pretty much the same career averages, and at number 3 the difference is a bare 3-4 points, which is pretty insignificant considering the proportion of home games Ponting has played compared to Dravid and for a good 4-5 years had a dream team to be batting in.

I would disagree that the Australian batting line up is comparable to Indian or South Africa. Both these teams have instances where they have managed very good scores in difficult batting conditions. I can't think of a single instance from Australia over the past 2-3 years.

How much is significant? Dravid and Ponting have pretty much the same career averages, and at number 3 the difference is a bare 3-4 points, which is pretty insignificant considering the proportion of home games Ponting has played compared to Dravid and for a good 4-5 years had a dream team to be batting in.

That is why I never said Ponting is a better player then Dravid. But because of Ponting's counter attacking ability, he is slightly ahead in terms of importance for the team (hence he should be kept in the #3 position). Same thing can be said about Sehwag.

Doesn't get forward enough to pitched up deliveries. Looks very awkward defending it, a bit like Cook.

Oh no he's a bit like the leading run scorer in this Ashes, we better not bat him all the way up at number 3, because Cook couldn't bat that high and Khawaja hasn't had any experience as a top order batsman..

Oh no he's a bit like the leading run scorer in this Ashes, we better not bat him all the way up at number 3, because Cook couldn't bat that high and Khawaja hasn't had any experience as a top order batsman..

sarcasm ffs..

Yeah use the only series where Cook has actually played decently as an example and to somehow in your weird way justify that he has a really good front foot technique?